By 6am, January 26, 2013, Dianne Feinstein's office had posted the full text of the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" (within two days of the Bill being introduced on the Senate floor on January 24th). The full text can be found at:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
The first line of the main text, just below the words "Bill", states the purpose of the bill and these words are sure to enflame concerns of U.S. government tyranny and efforts by the government to further unbalance the power between the government and its people. The purpose, as stated, is:
In my opinion this poor choice of words will doom this Bill.
For those of us in favor of a limited form of gun control, this misstep is inconceivably out of touch with the reasonable concerns of the gun rights contingent. So let us consider whether this statement supports the gun-rights advocate's premise that "they" want to take away the people's rights to keep and bear arms so that political uprisings may be more easily suppressed.
For the sake of discussion, let us just say that this ridiculous objective DOESN'T kill this Bill. Let's say that by some unforeseeable mechanism the bill passes both houses and is signed into law. Would the particulars of this bill significantly reduce the effectiveness of a civilian insurgency against the US government and its military (assuming also that the executive, legislative and judicial branches stay aligned with the military)?
I would argue that the passage of the bill would have little or no effect. Why? Because if that insurgency were to occur, it certainly would be a guerrilla conflict and not a conventional war. The existing weapons (exempted by applicable grandfather clauses included in the bill) added to the armaments that would surely become available to the insurgents by international enemies of the current state would easily outnumber the civilian combatants physically or emotionally capable of using them.
For illustration, lets do some simple back-of-the-envelope calculations to see how many guns we currently have on hand in the event we needed to arm an insurgent militia (does not count supplemental arms from international sources):
As of January 26, 2013, the estimated US population was approximately 315 million US citizens. (Population Est Ref: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html )
And
As of late 2012, The rate of private gun ownership in the US was approximately 89 guns (all types) per 100 US Citizens. (Rate of Gun ownership 2012 Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/gun-ownership-infographic_n_1762059.html#slide=221477. )
This means we have an estimated 280,350,000 privately owned guns in the US that we could (conceivably) use to arm an insurgent militia.
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel, the rate of military and paramilitary personnel deployed (of course) varies widely by country and time so I have selected from the reference two examples, the highest rate (for S. Ossetia at 34 troops per 1000 citizens) and the rate for the US (4.4 troops per 1000 US Citizens).
Applying these rates to determine how many insurgent militia troops we might have to deploy we get:
315,000,000 US Citizens * 34 military/1000 US Citizens= 10,700,000 militia
(S. Ossetia)
or
315,000,000 US Citizens * 4.4 military/1000 US Citizens = 1,386,000 militia (US)
So, if we evenly distribute our available guns amongst them, we get a range of between 26 guns per militia soldier and 202 guns per militia soldier.
[280,350,000 guns / 10,700,000 militia = 26 guns per militia (minimum)
280,350,000 guns / 1,386,000 militia = 202 guns per militia (< maximum)]
OK! Stop yelling! I hear you! "Too simplified!!!". Yes, I agree, but consider a modest adjustment to make this napkin exercise a tad bit more realistic. The number of available US Citizens is over estimated here as I did not account for those not able (young children and the very elderly). If we do that, the number of guns available to each able-bodied militia soldier increases, probably by a considerable margin.
As a matter of opinion, the only way I see that we would be short armaments is to require that our insurgency arms be of equal or better quality than the US military has, but recall that this would not likely be a conventional war, thus the argument fails (See also my previous blog post).
A different problem with this model lies in the heterogeneous distribution of the privately owned guns in the first place. An insurgency would immediately face the problem of redistributing the available weapons and I doubt that would be an easy task seeing as how those weapon would either need to be voluntarily contributed to the insurgency or taken by force, which would likely weaken the force beyond repair. In any case, the hoarding of weapons in personal arsenals would (or should be) a primary strategic concern.
Setting that aside for the moment, let us consider another very real problem for any budding insurgency-- and it is not access to a sufficient number of guns. It is, rather, access to a sufficient quantity and quality of ammunition. Assuming that this imagined insurgency were reasonably lead and cohesive, the supply of appropriate ammunition must be not only established and maintained but geographically and strategically distributed. This would seem a key vulnerability which the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 simply does not address. The proposal suggests limiting access to large quantity clips but remains silent on the accessibility of the bullets themselves.
Thus I continue to wonder why, when faced with the potential passing if an assault weapons ban, gun rights advocates ever resort to the argument that the ban would unbalance power. It is my contention that the proposed bill would do absolutely nothing in that regard. But when facing or discussing this practicality, it has been my observation that the debate erodes first into a dance between differing reasons for maintaining the right and finally to emotional fisticuffs. This is wholly unfortunate because the legitimate arguments on both sides get lost in the shuffle. This must stop if we are to find an equitable and robust solution to the impasse.
So let us move on from this argument and make progress toward understanding the true concerns. For good or bad as I said at the outset and in my opinion, this particular bill is unlikely to pass.
After reading through your post twice, I gleaned several salient points you make. I would like to comment on them.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, The wording of the bill is essentially accurate: There is no reason for the common civilian to possess an assault weapon, with the exception as a gun collector, (in which case, the gun should be rendered inoperable, and for display purposes only).
However, my rationalization for the revolt against this 'stated purpose' of the bill is in the reality that the current administration has made it clearly evident that it is against personal rights; and the bill, should it pass, would open the floodgates for future erosion of those rights. I believe this is the reason there is so much back pressure against the legislation, even though legislation similar(?) to this recently elapsed.
Secondly, your mathematical model assumes(?) that only gun-rights activists own the weapons identified in the tally you cited. I believe this is an erroneous assumption. Not being a gun owner, I cannot say whether or not, (though I would expect not), the gun registration forms and background checks done legally do not identify political alignment. Nor does it account for the police forces' arsenals, which would most likely be called upon to enforce the government's efforts. And lastly, it does not take into account how many weapons are owned by military and ex-military personnel who would hold allegiance to the government. Considering these factors, as murky as they are, no single 'activist' could be certain of his ability to effect any reversal of government's attempts to become a police state, or to dissuade any proponent for the disarming of the citizenry. more to follow...
Thirdly, the debate is like any other, whether politics or religion, rights or 'wants'; neither side will be convinced by words. Thus, it erodes into an emotional response to the 'other' sides words or actions.
ReplyDeleteFourthly, you were absolutely correct in that the discussion should not be about guns. "guns don't kill people, people do. Crazy people more than sane people, at that. The focus needs to be on the mental status of people who exhibit anti-societal behavior, and trying to correct that, rather than taking guns from everyone.
Lastly, and this is my opinion of where this will end up, for what that is worth; I believe that there will not be a strong enough resistance to this kind of legislation to prevent this country from becoming divided into two classes. As much as it may seem ludicrous, we are moving to a society where the common citizen is 'beneath, inferior, or incapable of understanding the rights bestowed on the governing class, however small or large that group may be. It is already taking shape, in that all opponents to the current administration's efforts are vilified, excoriated and demonized. (e.g. look at the furor that gained national attention in 2010 and 2011, over our governor's efforts to balance our state budget: mobs of teachers and government workers, students of teachers who congregated at Madison, all gathered in civil unrest for several weeks; legislator's derelict in their duty/office, (actually, out of their office),abandoned their JOB, rather than even offer any alternatives in any discourse. All exhibiting cruel, belligerent, offensive behaviors displayed by the 'entitled' class of government workers who were losing some of their 'entitlements'! 2nd e.g.: the uncivilized behaviors of the OWS protesters, throughout the nation, who acted like animals; they defecated in the streets, raped fellow protesters, committed acts of property damage, etc, and left a ton of garbage in their wake. This is documented evidence of one group's 'uncivilized' efforts to maintain, or gain, 'entitlements'. The participants in both of these examples were NOT amenable to civilized discussion and discourse to resolve the issue. They were/are entitled to the benefits they want(ed), and to He!! with the logic or reasoning behind other sides' position. This mentality is pervasive in our nation, more so in the party of our current leadership in Washington. This group is working to divide the nation into the classes I mentioned.
I do not infer that the alternative scenario is 'righteous'. I do say that the continued success of this administration will have the same consequences here as have happened worldwide in other nations where similar ideologies gained power.